Sunday, September 01, 2013

Obama Gets "Syrias" On Syria

You really wish you had the
credentials and clearance to attend a White House press conference, indoors or
in the Rose Garden, and have the chance to pose this question to President
Barack Obama: "Sir: Why don’t you just go on an extended golfing tour for
the rest of your term, and leave the country alone? And, the world, too. You
might be able to improve your par."

Barring that, one could just
toss a rotten egg at him. Or an over-ripe tomato. If you couldn't get the egg
or the tomato passed security, you could sacrifice one of your shoes. I don’t
think the White House Press Corps shows up barefooted, leaving their footwear
in a TSA-style Secret Service bin. You would look silly hobbling out of the
press conference in handcuffs, but you will have asked your question, or made
your point one way or another.

Whatever you threw at him –
the question, the egg, the tomato, or the shoe – Obama just might get the
point. Or he may not. Chances are that he wouldn't get it, because he is truth-proof.
Reality is optional for him. It is whatever he wishes it to be, and we mustn't
corner him with inconvenient questions, or shower him with expiration-dated
foodstuffs.

Let's take Syria, and President
Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. Obama has a "high
confidence" that Assad used them. Translated, "high
confidence" means a percentile of certainty, and not absolute certainty, based
on circumstantial evidence that someone
used chemical weapons, because there are bodies to prove it. However, a
"high confidence," in colloquial terms, simply means a
"hunch" that Assad used them and not Syrian "rebels" using
captured chemical weapons from Iraq. Or from Benghazi. Or from a Mexican drug
cartel. Not evidence.

It would be easy to claim
that Obama errs. Obama does not "err." He is not handicapped by an
epistemological cataract that prevents him from seeing the truth or that blurs
it in a murky mist. The truth is irrelevant to him when it contradicts his
wishes. He wishes it to be true that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. This
will justify his ordering military action against Assad.

His behavior over Syria has
been Obama's characteristic leitmotif throughout his entire presidential
tenure. His eyes are wide open and he knows what he is doing. On his side are
the news media to help him put the falsehoods across as truths. Against him is
the truth.

Contradictions clash in men's
minds when the transgendered falsehoods collide with what many only sense may
be the truth, and fervor for The One consequently diminishes to tepid support
and even abandonment. Obama, like Woodrow Wilson, posed for a long time as
"anti-war." But he has proven to be a wannabe warlord, and when his
personalized warfighting backfires as it did in Libya and Egypt, he has a
shovel-ready machinery in place among his appointees and in the new media to
help him bury the disasters and to sprinkle the corpses with generous spadefuls
of lime. In that arduous effort, he had the assistance of former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton.

After all, the Al Qada-linked
Syrian "rebels" are blameless, trustworthy truth-tellers, don’t you
know? We mustn't impugn their character by implying that they used chemical weapons on fellow Muslims in order to impugn the
character of Bashar Assad. Allah forbid.

Assad is a dictator, and a
pox on his house, as well. But you will have noticed that Obama isn't accusing
Assad of being a dictator, only that he did a bad thing. Well, a "bad
thing" according to international consensus, when many, many thousands
more people have died in the interminable battle between Assad and the Syrian
"rebels."

Obama has a weakness for
dictators and strong-arm leaders. He envies them their power. He bows and
scrapes before kings and kingpins such as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and
Russia's Vladimir Putin, trades high-fives with monsters such as Hugo Chavez
and has tea with Chinese Party chiefs. And hires Muslims by the bushel-load to
manage his administration. This is aside from his having supported Morsi and
his ousted Muslim Brotherhood Sharia-governed régime.

The nature of Obama's
perception of the world comes from his own mouth. Andy Borowitz of The
New Yorker on August 29th ran a satirical piece on the workings
of his mind:

“Let
me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect
régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war
there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days
and then leave.”

“I
want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to
undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said.
“This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

Sending in U.S. warships to
blast Assad's military infrastructure will have no purpose? No goal? No
intention of altering the balance of power in Syria or anywhere else? What,
then, is the point of any intervention at all? Obama is treating his own
military action as though it would be as prankish as a college fraternity
panty-raid, and regards our own military, which he despises, as his personal
playpen toys. His concession to Congressional authorization has the character
of patronizing a body he'd just rather not have to deal with. Listening
to him in the Rose Garden, I almost expected him to smirk in contempt for
the law and the right of Congress to sanction his executive war powers, or not.

As many commentators have
noted, it is beginning to be hard to distinguish between Obama's reality and
reality itself. It's hard to identify satire from Obama's policies and actions.

No wonder no one can take him
seriously. Not even Europeans who want to like him, but can't do anything but
laugh behind his back and even in his face, or give him the polite brush-off.

Obama's Charley McCarthy
ventriloquist dummy, Jay Carney, per The New Yorker satirical piece, confirmed
his boss's bizarre pronouncements after our "allies" did a
double-take on the proposed time frame of a Syrian intervention:

That
criticism led White House spokesman Jay Carney to brief reporters later in the
day, arguing that the President was willing to scale down the U.S. mission to
“twenty-four hours, thirty-six tops.”

“It
may take twenty-four hours, but it could also take twelve,” Mr. Carney said.

“Maybe
we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long
it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The
President is resolute about that.”

Obama's resolution has the
strength of overcooked spaghetti.

Obama said that he will go
ahead with a Syrian intervention even if Congress does not authorize it.That is the attitude of a spoiled demagogue. In
terms of chronological age, he is a spoiled brat. In terms of a character
assessment, he is a power-lusting creature.

And, what is Syria to Obama?
It is a place where he can experiment with that country as he unsuccessfully
experimented with Egypt. No one came to Morsi's aid when he was trounced. But
Russia's Putin is also sending warships to the Syrian coast in support of
Assad. Have we the ingredients of another world war cooking in the
Mediterranean?

Over what? The power plays
between one brutal régime, Assad's, and a Muslim Brotherhood alliance of
Islamic supremacists, who have proven to be equally brutal.

Whose side is Obama really
on? The Syrian people, "yearning for democracy"? Or Al-Qada's,
yearning for power? As Abigail Esman put it in her IPT
column of August 30th:

Equally
incredible is the fact that, in taking military action in Syria, America would
effectively be standing on the same side as al-Qaeda affiliate groups who also
support them. As counterterrorism consultants Flashpoint Partners recently reported, "the lion's share of foreign fighters who
are dying in Syria are fighting with the most hardline organization involved in
the uprising: Jabhat al-Nusra. The leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, Abu Mohammed
al-Joulani, has recently publicly sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Ayman
al-Zawahiri and the group has been blacklisted as a branch of Al Qaeda in Iraq
by the United States Government."

Imagine the corrupted moral
and epistemological mentality of a president who would intentionally, consciously take the side of this
country's enemies, in this instance, Al-Qada.

It's time for Americans and
Congress to take seriously the idea now floating around the Internet that Obama
is a ripe candidate for impeachment, and for graver executive felonies than
Bill Clinton ever committed.

It's time to stop Obama in
his tracks. It's time to hold him accountable for every destructive action he
has ever taken since his first day in office in January 2009.

2 comments:

A truckload of dynamite has the same effect on a target whether it is driven straight to the point of impact or careens into it with a drunk driver behind the wheel. With Obama it is increasingly difficult to determine which one we've got at any given time.

And, as any blogger noted, what difference could it make if 5,000 people are killed by "conventional" weapons or if 1,500 are killed by chemical weapons? As that writer also noted, there's some sort of "mystique" surrounding chemical weapons that supposedly raises everyone's hackles. A big deal is being made of the number of Syrian children killed by someone's chemical weapons. But apparently there's no concern about the thousands of children killed in the Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, etc. killed by suicide bombers, rockets, machine guns, and other "conventional" weaponry.